boss315

UA got quite a spanking in this article!

GS8101

UA doesn't need to hold anything or pre-authorize any. UA should simply give a customer two choices to either pre-pay $500~600 or not. When the merchant (upgrade) becomes available, if you have pre-paid, the upgrade is confirmed. or they charge your credit card and if the charge is denied, the upgrade will go to the next person on the waiting list.

channa

Eh, then you change credit card numbers (e.g., fraud which is rampant these days) or your expiration date changes, are you going to remember that you had active upgrades pending and/or which ones there were?

Or are they going to charge your primary credit card on file, and presume you keep that updated? They can't even process the waitlists in a timely fashion.

Kacee

Yup. And just as the hotel doesn't give you the room if your card won't handle the anticipated room charges, UA doesn't give you the upgrade if the co-pay can't be charged to the card.

The only downside to UA here is they would lose the float. Which they shouldn't be getting anyway.

Good point, but the solution should not be that UA gets to sit on $1200 for six months.

It should be pax's obligation to ensure there's a valid card tied to the waitlist request.

exerda

Yes, though knowing UA's IT prowess, we'd hear plenty of complaint threads about UA charging the old card # and pax losing upgrades despite having updated their account number...

Often1

The reason to require pre-payment is simplicity. The float is way under 1% these days and some banks are actually charging commercial customers to hold large cash balances. It's been this way for almost 3 years and isn't likely to change anytime soon.

The idea of giving the passenger the option of providing a CC# and having the UG skipped to the next person if the charge is for any reason is declined. But, there would be thousands of dissatisfied customers, some even whining on FT, about lost cards, stolen cards, over-limit problems and the like. That too would be blamed on UA.

As to refunds, make the request, wait 5 business days and initiate a chargeback request noting the passage of time and UA's failure to honor the refund it promised. You will see a temporary credit, UA won't bother to respond and will simply cancel its refund and let the chargeback become permanent. No muss, no fuss.

Cargojon

Good luck initiating a chargeback on an 8-10 month old charge.

Kacee

UA doesn't "hold" the cash, it uses it.

Tchiowa

I'm missing something. I use miles and copay to upgrade from Business to First several times a year. (Always TPAC). Whenever I select the upgrade option it gives me the opportunity to select my seat immediately. And it always goes through. I've never seen it where it offers me the opportunity to upgrade then tells me I'm waitlisted.

Am I that lucky or are TPAC flights treated differently or just what?

Kacee

Upgrades from J to F are far easier than Y to J.

For non-GS, if you try to upgrade Y to J, odds are probably between 70-99% you get placed on a waitlist (depending on route).

exerda

You're just lucky.

Cash + miles require R or RN inventory for upgrades Y->C, and IIRC O inventory for C->F.

I have three flights waitlisted TPAC right now.

Boraxo

Great to see UA continuously raked over the coals by WSJ, which is influential in the boardroom and elsewhere.

In addition to the much discussed refund issues, the story did highlight a couple of key things we here have know for months:

(1) CPUs are mostly a thing of the past, particularly between hubs and for anyone <GS
(2) Miles + Copay are a mostly a sucker's bet
(3) Fixing .bomb is not a high priority

J.Edward

I can understand that point of view - if I were waitlisted and an upgrade opened up, I would be bummed if I was skipped due to a breakdown in the payment method.

I think the *real* issue here is not that UA collects cash should an upgrade clear but rather the poor implementation of the refund process (to say nothing of the upgrade process!).

I don't think anyone here would disagree there's an argument to be made for this practice - if for no other reason then to streamline a potential upgrade - but likewise I don't see how any reasonable argument or defense can be made of what is functionally a broken system solely under UA's control.

While I agree this has the potential to be functional, it is an appalling solution to the underlying problem of UA not being able to put their affairs in order.

Often1, I am not sure if you are a merchant yourself...or have ever had the "joy" of setting up a merchant account, but as a merchant myself I would at the least be dinged $20+ per chargeback (and that's if I successfully fought the chargeback, I would pay more if I did not prevail) and if my chargebacks went up and at worst face having my merchant account terminated, payments frozen and/or delayed, and risk being placed on the TMF.

I do not know what deal UA has worked out with Chase/Paymentech, AX, or whoever else handles their processing (and I have no doubt it is on better terms that I could ever hope to get myself) but the point remains the chargeback should be an option of last resort for the customer as they tend to reflect poorly on the merchant.

If UA is truly unable to process refunds in a timely manner than I am grateful I have this option available as a customer but at the same time I am appalled at the unprofessionalism of UA sitting back and letting the problem "sort itself out" via customer chargebacks.

channa

Why? We know how this airline thinks. It's all about dollars and cents. They have no doubt factored in a chargeback factor as part of their business process. So when that happens, instead of looking introspectively into how to improve the process so it's handled better next time, they chalk it up to a necessary business cost, as chargebacks are cheaper than fixing CO's systems, and show no shame for dropping the ball or irritating the customer.

They don't seem to care about that, or the volume of DOT complaints, or anything that makes them look bad. I bet they have some beancounter over there justifying the latest DOT cargo fine vs. the cost of implementing the correct procedures systemwide, and raising a glass to how well they did.

Heck, we had an purported employee poster just a week or two ago post that United's systems don't barf on tickets because of bad IT, they barf on tickets on purpose as a fraud check, and sometimes they don't get ticketed as a result without notifying the customer, and if a customer's vacation gets ruined here or there, so be it, it's the cost of doing business.

Bottom line, they're not focused on things flowing smoothly be it tickets, refunds, or whatnot.

FlyWorld

They are focused on one thing, and one thing only: Maximizing the size of $mi$ek's annual bonus payment.